The idea would be roughly as follows: in criminal cases, we decide what the accused should be able to spend to defend themselves against a given charge-securities fraud, grand theft, manslaughter, etc. No one can spend more, even if she has the money, and those who can't afford the limit would receive a subsidy for the full amount beyond what they would have spent on their own (say, beyond a certain percentage of their annual salary or net worth). In civil cases, we decide what the plaintiff should be able to spend to pursue an award of a particular amount, or to pursue a particular kind of claim, and what the defendant should be able to spend in response. The same subsidies would apply.

As an M&A attorney, I'm genuinely confused how this would apply to me. Does this idea only apply to actual litigation? Seems odd if so, since much of the screwing happens well before the litigation stage.

The criminal part is absurd. You don't make justice equal by depriving people of legal counsel. That's dumb as hell. The goal should be the provision of good legal counsel to everyone, and if you have the money to spend more, go for it.

Civil litigation I can *maybe* see an argument for having rules which govern expense of counsel. But I don't know what that would be, and not being a litigator I don't have strong feelings. I also feel like they'd be quite easily circumvented.

DamnYankees:The criminal part is absurd. You don't make justice equal by depriving people of legal counsel. That's dumb as hell. The goal should be the provision of good legal counsel to everyone, and if you have the money to spend more, go for it.

'"They" get away with it, because "we" allow it. We are not adequately angry, hungry or pissed off enough to change things... and societal change is slow and meandering. I guess it really just all boils down to... Santa Claus hat-wearing dogs with drum sticks.

The criminal part is absurd. You don't make justice equal by depriving people of legal counsel. That's dumb as hell. The goal should be the provision of good legal counsel to everyone, and if you have the money to spend more, go for it.

Civil litigation I can *maybe* see an argument for having rules which govern expense of counsel. But I don't know what that would be, and not being a litigator I don't have strong feelings. I also feel like they'd be quite easily circumvented.

I'm sorry, but when the people that commit grossly heinous crimes like, sending a country to war based on lies and nearly destroying the global economy to make an extra buck, don't even get charged with anything? How the hell does your plan to address legal inequality even touch that, smartass?

UNC_Samurai:I'm sorry, but when the people that commit grossly heinous crimes like, sending a country to war based on lies and nearly destroying the global economy to make an extra buck, don't even get charged with anything? How the hell does your plan to address legal inequality even touch that, smartass?

sprawl15:UNC_Samurai: I'm sorry, but when the people that commit grossly heinous crimes like, sending a country to war based on lies and nearly destroying the global economy to make an extra buck, don't even get charged with anything? How the hell does your plan to address legal inequality even touch that, smartass?

UNC_Samurai:sprawl15: UNC_Samurai: I'm sorry, but when the people that commit grossly heinous crimes like, sending a country to war based on lies and nearly destroying the global economy to make an extra buck, don't even get charged with anything? How the hell does your plan to address legal inequality even touch that, smartass?

This is dumb. I do, however, like tying fines (like traffic violations) to income/net worth. That way the deterrent hits everyone's wallet roughly the same way. But restrictions on serious criminal defenses make me nervous. Tax the rich to pay for public defenders instead.

Warlordtrooper:New law: Anyone who is rich who is commits a crime, no matter what crime it is is sentenced to a public beheading.

No, but it's time to stop disconnecting cause and effect.

A guy ribs a liquor store of $500 and threatens maybe 5 people. Heck, let's say he actually kills 5 with a shotgun.

Wall Street employees knowingly packages up a bunch of doomed mortgages and sell them as triple AAA product. The economy shiats, and wipes out tons of people's retirements. Small businesses close their doors. Millions of people lose their jobs, and health insurance. People become homeless. How many people died because those farkers had to get a bonus check? How many other people's lives did they threaten?

Even just robbing a store with a gun (no deaths, injuries) can get you more than a few years. They say it's because of violence, but was Wall Street really any less violent in the end? Heck the scale is amazing. A buster robbing a liquor store can threaten only a few people at a time. The Wall Street thieves? They can threaten millions of people, from their offices, with malfeasant behavior.

AliceBToklasLives:This is dumb. I do, however, like tying fines (like traffic violations) to income/net worth. That way the deterrent hits everyone's wallet roughly the same way. But restrictions on serious criminal defenses make me nervous. Tax the rich to pay for public defenders instead.

I think Scandinavian countries link fines to income. It's not a bad idea; should very wealthy people be sociopathic lawbreaking jerks just because it's cheap?

The criminal part is absurd. You don't make justice equal by depriving people of legal counsel. That's dumb as hell. The goal should be the provision of good legal counsel to everyone, and if you have the money to spend more, go for it.

Civil litigation I can *maybe* see an argument for having rules which govern expense of counsel. But I don't know what that would be, and not being a litigator I don't have strong feelings. I also feel like they'd be quite easily circumvented.

Even for civil, you would have to have limits on the cost per hour, per attorney, not the total cost. The costs of civil suits differ so wildly based on the circumstances that trying to fit them all into one scheme with a fixed ceiling is an exercise in lunacy.

inglixthemad:Warlordtrooper: New law: Anyone who is rich who is commits a crime, no matter what crime it is is sentenced to a public beheading.

No, but it's time to stop disconnecting cause and effect.

A guy ribs a liquor store of $500 and threatens maybe 5 people. Heck, let's say he actually kills 5 with a shotgun.

Wall Street employees knowingly packages up a bunch of doomed mortgages and sell them as triple AAA product. The economy shiats, and wipes out tons of people's retirements. Small businesses close their doors. Millions of people lose their jobs, and health insurance. People become homeless. How many people died because those farkers had to get a bonus check? How many other people's lives did they threaten?

Even just robbing a store with a gun (no deaths, injuries) can get you more than a few years. They say it's because of violence, but was Wall Street really any less violent in the end? Heck the scale is amazing. A buster robbing a liquor store can threaten only a few people at a time. The Wall Street thieves? They can threaten millions of people, from their offices, with malfeasant behavior.

The part of your analogy that doesn't fly with me is ability to do direct harm. The robber with a weapon is capable of doing more direct harm (albeit on a much smaller scale) while the douchebag who commits securities fraud is causing indirect harm. While people getting hurt is the result of both, the provable links of causation are much more difficult to establish.

Alternatively, the office of prosecutor could be appointed instead of elected, so prosecutors wouldn't be in such a hurry to convict as many (poor) people of things as they can. And perhaps encouraging a legal ethic where we don't employ "gotcha!" as a strategy to combat crime. The second point is a bit harder to implement, but surely fairness and social utility can be emphasized the education and career of prosecutors.

josephstalin:Alternatively, the office of prosecutor could be appointed instead of elected, so prosecutors wouldn't be in such a hurry to convict as many (poor) people of things as they can. And perhaps encouraging a legal ethic where we don't employ "gotcha!" as a strategy to combat crime. The second point is a bit harder to implement, but surely fairness and social utility can be emphasized the education and career of prosecutors.

Even where DA's are elected, almost all of the prosecutors *ie ADA's) are just city or state employees. Regardless, it is an unfortunate part of the system that their success is measured in convictions instead of some type of social utility.

UNC_Samurai:I'm sorry, but when the people that commit grossly heinous crimes like, sending a country to war based on lies and nearly destroying the global economy to make an extra buck, don't even get charged with anything? How the hell does your plan to address legal inequality even touch that, smartass?

The law, in its majesty, gives immunity to both rich and poor people that direct executive agencies to commit torture, manipulate the LIBOR rate, and engage in extra-judicial drone strikes of American citizens.

jigger:I kinda skimmed that thing, but am I to understand that a criminal defendant would be limited in the amount of money that could be spent on his defense but the government prosecuting him has no limit?

fusillade762:The idea would be roughly as follows: in criminal cases, we decide what the accused should be able to spend to defend themselves against a given charge-securities fraud, grand theft, manslaughter, etc. No one can spend more, even if she has the money, and those who can't afford the limit would receive a subsidy for the full amount beyond what they would have spent on their own (say, beyond a certain percentage of their annual salary or net worth). In civil cases, we decide what the plaintiff should be able to spend to pursue an award of a particular amount, or to pursue a particular kind of claim, and what the defendant should be able to spend in response. The same subsidies would apply.

It's so convoluted it just might work!

That is a hideous idea. It's communism, not socialism. People should be allowed to spend money on better legal representation if they want to. The notion of the government telling people who can represent them is antithetical to our constitutional system.

Animatronik:That is a hideous idea. It's communism, not socialism. People should be allowed to spend money on better legal representation if they want to. The notion of the government telling people who can represent them is antithetical to our constitutional system.

In what universe is this communism? You do realize that communism doesn't just mean "policies you don't like", right?

Increasing the number of public defenders seems to be the most (only) reasonable idea in there. Ensure everyone has a baseline of adequate counsel available....if you can afford more or are offered more, great.

That's a horrible idea. It sounds like rationing justice so NOBODY gets any.

A better idea would be to ensure that everyone gets equal access to the mechanisms of justice: All defendants (no matter how rich or poor) get the same access to DNA tests, expert witnesses, forensic analysts, etc. Impose draconian sanctions against DAs, police and other government agents who are found to suppress or conceal exculpatory evidence--no mere slap on the wrist years or decades later. Provide federal oversight for state officials found to have wrongfully prosecuted defendants, so that wrongful convictions can be expedited or expunged (none of this "We still think he's guilty even if the DNA evidence cleared him" b/s).

And no more pre-trial dilly-dong plea bargains for those with slick lawyers. If your new-Mercedes smell aggravated your sleep apnea or your adolescent "affluenza" really caused you to kill six people, fine; but that should only count at the sentencing phase of the trial. Let the defendant be tried and convicted on the merits; and any mitigating or aggravating circs be considered ONLY at sentencing. Whether he was abused himself or she was a drug addict should have no bearing on the instant offense.

And finally, no more waivers of jury duty. Everyone goes. You get paid your actual daily wage for jury duty; and nobody gets excused. Everyone gets tried by a jury of his/her peers who are drawn from a pool of actual human beings from all walks of life--smart and stupid, rich and poor, CEOs and street hoboes. No excuses except illness or death. That would make things as fair as they could be.

Relatively easy fix with perhaps less wiggle room for systematic corruption:Two attorneys assigned to each criminal case. Both have equal access to Detectives, Crime Lab, Witness interviews, etc. After both complete their individual investigations, if at least one of them believes a crime was committed then the judge flips a coin... heads you are prosecutor, tails you are defense.

DamnYankees:Civil litigation I can *maybe* see an argument for having rules which govern expense of counsel. But I don't know what that would be, and not being a litigator I don't have strong feelings. I also feel like they'd be quite easily circumvented.

I think I could understand it for the sake of an individual taking on a big business or a small business taking on (or defending itself) against big business so they do not get buried in years of litigation that they cannot possibly afford. I also do not know how this would work in that I agree it seems easy for them to circumvent.

We already have a form of socialized law. It has the same downside as Socialized Medicine:

All people have access to services on list A. Rich people have access to the services on list A plus any other services they can privately afford. Its why billionaires fly to the US to have pricey medical procedures done, but will go in to the local clinic if they need antibiotics.

The real problem is that the legal services on list A are provided by groups that are woefully underfunded and overworked. Saying, lets just throw up our hands and prevent people form getting any services outside of list A is a fairly dumb response to the problem.